Category talk:Portraits
Hmm--This is likely to take a while. Turtle Fan 23:51, January 17, 2010 (UTC) I can see that, yes. How are you finding images to categorize? ML4E 02:11, January 18, 2010 (UTC) :I started by picking a figure at random, Lincoln. (Well given how much I admire him maybe it wasn't quite random.) From there it was on to Presidents. From Presidents, Kennedys. At that point I realized I could continue on forever and not get everyone done, so I had to do it methodically--Historical Figures, in alphabetical order. A very, very tedious process and I'm sure it will take me many sittings. :The good news is, that really should do it. Surely we don't have portraits of fictional characters. Hmm--Well there is Featherston. Let me go take care of that while I'm thinking of it. Turtle Fan 03:05, January 18, 2010 (UTC) OK, I don't understand why the pics still are not all in alphabetic order. ML4E 01:09, January 25, 2010 (UTC) :Not sure either. Doesn't terribly matter, I'd argue. If we need a picture, we can do a search based on the name. TR 02:05, January 25, 2010 (UTC) ::Well they're all under different file names, aren't they? Anyway, I agree with what Ted said. Turtle Fan 03:03, January 25, 2010 (UTC) :::Correct. So I tried to put them into alphabetic order by last name by using the "|" method since the file names could be full or part names. But it didn't work consistently. Oh well. ML4E 21:15, January 27, 2010 (UTC) Sculptures? This is very likely splitting hairs, but does anyone feel it would be worthwhile for a subcat for Romans and others whose "portraits" are actually photos of sculptures of their likenesses? I for one have always thought of portraits as two-dimensional images, be they hand-drawn or photographic. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:33, June 22, 2015 (UTC) :I suppose we could sub-cat those as "Sculptures" or "Busts". The former might be better since some are full body carvings rather than just heads. ML4E (talk) 20:35, June 22, 2015 (UTC) ::I guess I'd vote against on the rather flimsy grounds of ease of use. I'm not sure if people sit here, looking through the images we have, but for such hypothetical people, it is probably less troublesome to have all the images of individuals in one category. ::In other words, I don't have any objection as such, but the value n doing so may be negligible. TR (talk) 21:00, June 22, 2015 (UTC) :::I wasn't too attached to the idea, just thought I'd float it. And now that you mention it, those who actually use the Portraits category would probably find it less convenient than the current system, and those who don't use it (myself included, truth be told) couldn't care less. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:22, June 23, 2015 (UTC) :::I didn't have strong feelings one way or the other but I do think TR raised a good point. That was the reason I was trying to put the individual pictures into alphabetic by name order as per the previous discussion. It does seem to be working too. ML4E (talk) 17:33, June 23, 2015 (UTC)